User talk:Dracmorair
Welcome to the White Wolf Wiki! Hi, and welcome to ! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database, most recently to File:Love4Kari.jpg. Thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community. If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of WWWiki, I have a few links that you might want to check out: * includes a basic tutorial about how to use our special wikitext code here on WWWiki. * Naming conventions provides guidelines on how to name a new page that you may want to create. * The Manual of Style is an overview of the basic guidelines for how to format and style your articles. * How to write a great article is a list of suggestions that can help you put together an article that might end up on our Featured Articles list someday. One other suggestion: If you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page, or to post them in our community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to WWWiki! -- IanWatson (talk) 15:09, June 29, 2013 (UTC) hi. Please dont Add your personal character information to the Wiki. its kind of inappropraite. ---- Dear IanWatson If my "personal" character need to contested so be it, and I'm willing to talk it out with the other contributuors but I'd like to remind you of of this: Mixing ignorance and knowledge "Good quality requires peer review and expertise. Why should we care about articles written by an arbitrary group of people whose knowledge and ability could range from expertise to hopeless ignorance? Ignorance mixed with knowledge does not benefit knowledge." :First of all, the hypothesis that openness is to the benefit of quality has already been tested, and to the benefit of the hypothesis: articles that have been worked on by many different people in the context of Wikipedia are now comparable to articles that can be found in some excellent encyclopedias. If, however, you insist on considering the hypothesis a priori, please ask yourself: which is more likely to be correct? :#A widely circulated article, subject to scrutiny, correction, and potentially constant improvement over a period of months or years, by vast numbers of experts and enthusiasts, possibly updated mere minutes before you read it. :#An article written by a nonspecialist professional writer or scholar (as many encyclopedia articles are), mostly shielded from public review and improvement, likely more than a year ago. :Second, there is a problem with the concept of peer review in general. Many great advances in the social and natural sciences have come by challenging the status quo and, because of that, their contributions were ignored or belittled by their peers. For example, George Akerlof, Nobel Laureate in Economics in 2001, had his classic paper (for which he won the Nobel Prize) entitled "The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism" rejected by the American Economic Review for being trivial and by the Journal of Political Economy because it conflicted with economic theory. Only after submitting it to a third journal, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, did the breakthrough article become published. Wikipedia allows for discourse where other venues would not. :However, this is not the place to expound on your own (unpublished) theories on physics, for example. See Wikipedia:Original research. :If my 18 long years as a story-teller is a testment to what I intend to contribute here the Exert or stub is on the page, I don't like ambiguity in stories, its great for mystery but including a figure in an obviously storyteller work like white wolfs' primer we have with this Wiki, then I pray tell you include your thoughts on what needs work instead of telling me not publish it. :Frith, :THE Historian of Nod (talk) 20:52, June 29, 2013 (UTC) :-------------------------- ::This is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia's conventions of notability (or, conversely, triviality) do not apply here, and are irrelevant. This is a Wiki for 'official' elements of White Wolf lore, which means it should be found in a game book, novel, card game, or other piece of White Wolf media. Your own characters are unofficial and do not belong here. --Ian talk 21:16, June 29, 2013 (UTC) Because i'm not a novelist...... riiiiighhht... /sarc THE Historian of Nod (talk) 21:56, June 29, 2013 (UTC) :I've been watching this conversation, and I'm getting the impression that you don't understand that this Wiki is only for canon White Wolf media. The word "canon" refers to the material that is in the official media of a fictional universe. Ergo, anything that White Wolf published about the classic World of Darkness is canon. Supplements that are created by an author such as yourself, and not published under the auspices of White Wolf, are not considered canon, regardless of how long, detailed, or high quality they may be. I have no doubt that you are an excellent author and storyteller, but this Wiki is purely for canon materials only. I hope that clears up any further misunderstandings. Asarelah (talk) 22:45, June 29, 2013 (UTC) :------------------------ :Oh, cannnon... Like the cannons of "he who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past" GOTCHA! ... If you think this is the figment of a malkavain mind you'd be wrong. :THE Historian of Nod (talk) 22:53, June 29, 2013 (UTC) ::I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Asarelah (talk) 23:21, June 29, 2013 (UTC)